FROM   THE  LIBRARY  OF 
REV.   LOUIS    FITZGERALD    BENSON,  D.  D. 

BEQUEATHED   BY  HIM   TO 

THE   LIBRARY  OF 

PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

sec 

3?S 


•$&> 


/£        A-i x»  *£*JT*  -«■*• 


DR.  WATTS, 


AN 


&srca»3FR2sra:vA%s&Er! 


DEMONSTRATED 


,i  REVIEW 


DR.  MILLER'S  LETTER 

TO    THE    EDITOR   OF 

THE  UNITARIAN  MISCELLANY. 

tJ^mcs  RvKwicK  V/iHsoNa 


PHILADELPHIA : 

PRINTED    FOR   THE    AUTHOR;   AND  SOLD  BY  D.  HOGAX,  LITTELL 

AND    HENRY,    AND    OTHER   BOOKSELLERS. 

J,  Anderson,  Printer. 

182J. 


PREFATORY  REMARKS. 


The  progress  of  Arian  and  Socinian  heresies,  in  the 
Reformed  churches,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  has 
given  just  ground  of  alarm  to  the  friends  of  truth, — to 
all  who  feel  an  interest  in  "  the  glory  of  the  Lord  God 
of  Israel," — to  all  who  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
"  Emmanuel,  God  with  its."  Turrettin  maintains,*  that 
no  anti-trinitarian  can  be  saved,  while  continuing  in 
the  belief  of  anti-trinitarianism.  One  text,  on  which 
he  relies  for  the  support  of  this  position,  is  1  John  v.  20. 
"  And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath 
given  us  an  understanding  that  we  may  know  him  that 
is  true ;  and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life." 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  true  God,  as  well  as  the  Son  of 
God;  and,  by  the  knowledge  of  him  as  Jehovah  Jesus, 
- — God's  eternal  Soh  by  necessary  generation,  and  ex- 
hibited in  humanity  as  the  Father's  righteous  servant,! 
— justification  unto  life  eternal  is  procured.  Hence 
Turrettin  reasons,  that  those  who  are  ignorant  of  the 
one  only  living  and  true  God,  subsisting  in  three  per- 
sons, co-equal,  co-essential,  and  co-eternal,  cannot  have 
life  eternal.  The  opinion  of  this  very  eminent  divine, 
has  been  the  current  opinion  of  orthodox  men.  Arian- 
ism,  Sabellianism,  Socinianism,  all  of  them  denying  the 
doctrine  of  a  true  and  proper  trinity  of  persons  in  the 
Godhead,  have  been  considered  damnable  heresies. 

Dr.  Miller,  a  professor  in  the  Princeton  Divinity 
School,  takes  the  same  ground,  in  the  Letter  reviewed 
in  the  following  pages.     The  writer  of  the  Review  of 


*  See  his  chapter  on  the  Trinity, 
t  Isaiah  liii.  1 1 . 


w 

Miller's  Letter,  hoped  that  Dr.  Miller's  brethren  in  the 
General  Assembly,  accorded  his  views;  especially  that 
Br.  Neill,  Dr.  Janeway,  &c.  the  publishing  committee  ot 
the  Presbyterian  Magazine,  would  accord  Miller's  doc- 
trine, that  anti-trinitarianism  is  a  damnable  heresy. 

He  wrote  the  Review,  and  sent  it  to  the  publishers 
of  the  Presbyterian  Magazine,  signing  his  name  in  full, 
according  to  their  own  terms.  This  Review  has  been 
refused  a  place  in  the  Magazine.  Why?  Do  those 
reverend  doctors  think  Dr.  Miller  has  gone  too  far? 
Are  they  unwilling  to  compliment  him  as  highly  as  the 
writer  of  the  Review  has  done  ?  Are  they  sensible  that 
they  have  Arians  in  their  congregations,  in  Philadel- 
phia? These  are  questions  which  the  committee  will 
understand.  May  there  not  have  been  another  cause? 
They  sing  the  Psalms  and  Hymns  of  Dr.  Isaac  Watts, 
in  Arch-street,  and  in  the  Spruce-street  churches.  They 
perceive  that  Dr.  Miller's  reviewer  has  proved,  to  the 
satisfaction  of  every  one  who  will  read  him,  that  Watts 
was,  and  his  writings  now  are,  as  decidedly  opposed  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  Socinus,  Alius,  Chan- 
ning,  or  any  other  anti-trinitarian.  Were  they  afraid 
to  let  their  people  know  that  they  are  singing  psalms 
and  hymns  composed  by  a  gross  heretic  ? 

It  is  pretty  evident,  the  committee  had  still  another 
reason.  Dr.  Miller  has  enumerated  among  the  articles 
which  form  the  very  essence  of  Christianity,  "  total 
depravity,"  and  "  the  vicarious  sufferings  of  Christ." 
There  are  hundreds  and  thousands  of  Hopkinsians,  in 
connexion  with  the  General  Assembly.  If  we  take 
Dr.  Griffin's  late  work  on  the  Atonement  as  the  index 
of  the  doctrines  of  Hopkinsians  generally,  then  Dr.  M. 
pronounces  all  Hopkinsians  guilty  of  holding  damna- 
ble heresies :  for  Dr.  Griffin  denies  that  man  is  totally 
depraved ;  that  so  far  from  this,  his  intellectual  powers 
are  as  good  as  Adam's  were,  and  that  his  active  powers 
only  are  depraved.  Again;  Dr.  Griffin  denies  that 
sin  was  imputed  to  Christ,  as  our  representative  head. 
He  denies,  of  course,  the  substitutionary,  or,  to  use  Dr. 


Miller's  word,  the  vicarious  nature  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ.  According  to  Dr.  Miller,  he  who  denies  either 
the  doctrine  of  man's  total  depravity  by  nature,  or  the 
substitutionary  nature  of  Christ's  obedience,  rejects 
what  enters  into  the  very  essence  of  Christianity,  and 
is  as  far  from  the  way  of  salvation  as  the  infidel  Hume. 
Were  the  committee  of  publication  unwilling  to  let 
their  people  know,  that  the  amiable  and  learned  pro- 
fessor has  denounced  Hopkinsians  as  damnable  here- 
tics ?  The  professor  ought  not  to  be  so  treated  by  his 
brethren  in  Philadelphia.  When  he  pronounces  an 
opinion,  from  the  professoral  chair,  why  should  they 
not  let  his  doctrine  be  heard  ? 

That  they  were  alarmed  on  this  point,  is  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  they  have  crossed  the  part  of  the 
Review  referring  to  this  subject,  as  the  reader  will  find 
explained  in  a  note. 

In  truth,  the  committee  dare  not  trust  what  they 
must  know  to  be  time,  among  their  people.  Dr.  Ely 
said  it  was  thought  it  would  not  be  prudent  to  trust  the 
Review  among  their  people,  or  words  to  that  effect. 

He  was  requested  to  assign  the  reasons  for  the  re- 
fusal by  a  note,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy : 

u  Dear  Doctor,  a  UT  ay' 

"  I  have  called  several  times  for  the  manuscript  Re- 
view of  Miller's  Letter,  and  have  not  had  the  pleasure 
of  finding  you  in.  As  you  have  signified  to  me  that 
it  cannot  have  a  place  in  the  Presbyterian  Magazine, 
will  you  have  the  goodness  to  leave  it  for  me,  with  the 
Teasons  for  its  non-insertion,  that  on  my  next  call  it 
may  be  obtained  ? — Yours, 

"  J.  R.  Willson. 
"  Rev.  Dr.  Ely." 

The  manuscript  was  returned,  without  any  written 

reasons  for  the  non-insertion.     In  justice,  however,  to 

Dr.  Ely,  it  may  be  worth  notice,  that  he  declared  his 

willingness  for  its  insertion,  and  said  he  was  not  afraid 

1* 


VI 

to  let  the  whole  truth  be  known.  Such  a  declaration 
is  certainly  agreeable  to  the  honest  frankness  of  his 
Contrast,  Theological  Quarterly  Review,  his  works  on 
the  Science  of  Mind,  &c. 

What  the  reasons  were  that  influenced  the  two  other 
doctors,  to  refuse  the  Review  a  place  in  the  Magazine, 
intelligent  professors,  of  all  parties,  will  easily  decide. 
How  much  has  the  cause  of  truth, — how  much  has  the 
church  of  the  living  God,  to  expect  from  a  Magazine 
conducted  on  such  dastardly  principles  ? 

As  to  the  style  and  temper  of  the  Review,  let  men 
of  learning  and  candour  judge.  To  the  decision  of 
such  men,  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  his  church, 
his  truth,  his  children,  the  Reviewer  commits,  fear- 
lessly, the  following  pages. 

Philadelphia,  1821,  May  22.' 


REVIEW. 


A  Letter  to  the  Editor  of  the  Unitarian  Miscellany ', 
in  reply  to  an  attack,  by  an  anonymous  writer  in 
that  work,  on  a  late  Ordination  Sermon,  delivered 
in  Baltimore;  ^Samuel  Miller,  D.D.  Author 
of  the  Sermon.  Baltimore:  published  by  E.  J. 
Coale.    R.  J.  Matchet,  printer.    1821. 

WE  naturally  look  with  interest  into  any  thing 
from  the  pen  of  a  writer  so  well  known,  and  so 
respectable,  as  the  author  6T  this  Letter.  His 
Review  of  the  Eighteenth  Century,  and  his 
Letters  on  Church  Government,  together  with 
the  important  station  which  he  occupies  in  the 
church,  and  which  he  fills  with  so  much  reputa- 
tion to  himself,  give  peculiar  weight  to  the  opi- 
nions which  he  expresses  on  any  of  the  great 
questions  in  theology,  that  divide  public  senti- 
ment, in  our  country.  His  well  known  amiable- 
ness  and  liberality  are  a  sure  pledge,  that  when 
he  utters  any  thing  that  appears  severe,  it  must 
proceed  from  a  full  conviction  of  its  truth,  and 
not  from  any  angry  passions.  In  the  sermon 
alluded  to  in  the  title  page,  the  author  of  the 
Letter  maintains,  that  the  doctrines  of  Socinians, 
or  Unitarians, — such  as  the  rejection  of  the  Tri- 
nity, of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  of  the  atone- 
ment which  he  made  for  sin, — are  another  Gospel 
than  that  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles;  and 


8 

that  the  Unitarian  is  not  entitled  to  the  name 
Christian.  This  position  he  illustrates,  and  en- 
forces with  such  emphasis,  as  to  make  it  impossi- 
ble that  he  should  be  misunderstood.  The  au- 
thor, in  taking  this  ground,  assails  the  enemy  on 
a  quarter  the  most  alarming;  for  the  chief  re- 
liance of  the  modern  Socinians  and  Arians,  for 
the  diffusion  of  their  opinions,  has  been  placed 
on  the  liberality  of  sentiment  which  they  profess, 
and  seem  to  expect  of  those  who  differ  from  them. 
They  wish  to  be  considered  as  attached  to  the 
Congregational  Church, — as  really  one  with  the 
great  body  of  Congregationalists  in  the  northern 
states.  Their  new  chapel,  in  New  York,  they 
style  the  "  First  Congregational  Church."  Dr. 
M.  unmasks  their  battery,  and  charges  them 
openly  with  "  bringing  in  damnable  heresies." 
He  had  reason  to  expect,  that  the  enemy  would 
not  be  disposed  to  abandon  the  citadel,  with- 
out resistance;  he  had  reason  to  expect,  that 
Unitarians  would  reply  to  him;  but,  if  reliance 
may  be  placed  on  their  professions  of  liberality, 
charity  and  politeness,  he  had  not  reason  to  ex- 
pect that  the  reply  would  be  so  bitter,  so  viru- 
lent, as  it  proved  to  be  in  fact. 

The  strictures  of  the  Unitarian  on  the  Ordina- 
tion Sermon,  were  published  in  the  Unitarian 
Miscellany,  a  magazine  devoted  to  the  cause  of 
what  Dr.  M.  calls  "  damnable  heresy,"  under 
the  signature  of  "  A  Baltimore  Unitarian." — 
The  author  of  the  Sermon  is  called  upon,  in  the 
most  pointed  manner,  to  explain  and  defend  him- 
self; and,  ready  "  to  render  a  reason  of  the  faith" 
that  he  holds,  he  writes  to  the  editor  of  the  Uni- 
tarian Miscellany,  a  Letter  in  reply  to  the  attack 
of  "  A  Baltimore  Unitarian."    Though  a  solemn 


pledge  had  been  given,  in  the  first  number  of  the 
Miscellany,  that  pieces  from  all  parties,  when 
written  with  moderation  and  candour,  should  be 
inserted,  yet  the  reply  to  the  Unitarian  of  Balti- 
more, was  refused  a  place.  The  reason  of  the 
refusal  will  be  ascribed,  by  every  unprejudiced 
mind,  to  the  proper  cause, — the  antagonist  was 
too  powerful  to  be  admitted  into  the  Unitarian 
arena,  where  he  boldly  offered  himself  for  the 
combat.  They  were  alarmed;  the  editors  shrunk 
from  the  discussion,  dreading  the  result.  It  is 
impossible  to  ascribe  the  refusal  to  any  other 
cause;  for  the  Letter  is  written  in  all  that  spirit 
of  meekness  and  urbanity,  so  characteristic  of  its 
author.  He  does  not,  indeed,  shrink  from  the 
open  avowal  and  plain  declaration  of  his  views; 
and  an  honourable  adversary  could  not  have  ex- 
pected that  he  should.  But  the  insertion  of  the 
Letter  was  refused,  because  they  apprehended 
danger.  Dr.  M.  "  availed  himself  of  the  only 
other  method  of  coming  before  a  Christian  public" 
— the  publication  of  his  Letter  in  a  pamphlet. 

The  first  charge  brought  against  him  by  the 
Unitarian  of  Baltimore,  is,  That  an.  Ordination 
Sermon  was  an  improper  occasion  for  introducing 
what  Unitarians  deem  offensive.  This  charge  he 
repels,  on  the  ground  that  his  remarks  did  pro- 
perly belong  to  his  subject; — that  the. discussion 
would  have  been  defective  without  them; — "  that 
fidelity  to  his  Master  in  heaven  required  him  to 
bear  the  testimony,  and  give  the  warning,  which 
have  proved  to  some  so  unacceptable;" — and  that 
Unitarian  ministers  have  brought  forward  their 
peculiar  opinions  in  Ordination  Sermons.  The 
second  charge  is,  That  "  Dr.  M.  will  not  allow 
Unitarians  to  be  Christians."     To  which  he  re- 


10 

plies:  "  This  charge  I  do  not  deny;  and  my  only 
answer  to  it  will  be  an  attempt,  not  to  explain  or 
apologize,  but  to  justify" 

He  says:  "  If  I  were  to  define  Christianity,  as 
it  appears  to  me  exhibited  in  the  word  of  God,  I 
should  say,  it  is  a  religion  which  provides  salva- 
tion for  totally  depraved  and  guilty  sinners;  and 
which,  for  this  purpose,  sets  before  them  pardon 
and  acceptance  with  God,  through  the  atonement 
and  righteousness  of  a  divine  Mediator,  and 
sanctification  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
In  fewer  words, — it  is  a  religion  which  secures  to 
those  who  embrace  it,  a  title  to  heaven,  and  a 
preparation  for  heaven,  through  the  atoning  blood 
and  sanctifying  Spirit  of  an  Almighty  Surety. 
This,  in  my  view,  forms  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  very  life  and  glory  of  the  system, 
which  being  taken  away,  it  is  destroyed;  it  is  no 
longer  the  same  religion,  but  another  Gospel." 
Of  course,  he  who  does  not  receive  the  doctrine 
of  man's  guilt  and  depravity  by  nature,  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  the  Son 
of  God,  and  of  the  sanctifying  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  does  not  receive  the  Gospel,  and  is,  con- 
sequently, "  no  Christian."  This  is  to  speak  out 
nobly,  and  approaches  to  the  magnanimous  firm- 
ness of  the  reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
Thus  spoke  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Knox,  of  the 
heresies  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

[Short  as  this  abstract  of  Christianity  is,  we 
find  "  the  guilt  of  man  by  nature" — that  is,  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin — the  "  depravity  of  man 
by  nature,"  from  infancy — among  the  doctrines 
which  form  the  essence  of  Chritianity. 

He  goes  on  to  say,  "  that  the  true  and  proper 
divinity  of  Christ,  and  of  his  vicarious  sacrifice 


11 

and  atonement,  are  essential  doctrines  of  the  Gos* 
pel; — That  he  who  rejects  those  fundamental 
truths,  however  respectable,  virtuous,  and  appa- 
rently devbut  he  may  be,  rejects  Christianity, 
as  really,  though  not  under  precisely  the  same  cir- 
cumstances, yet,  as  really  as  any  Deist  ever  did; 
that  he  cannot  with  propriety  be  called  a  Chris- 
tian m  any  sense;  and  that,  persisting  in  this  re- 
jection, he  is  on  just  as  dangerous  ground  as 
Herbert  or  Hume,  and  must  be  considered  as 
equally  far  from  the  way  of  salvation."*] 

The  Unitarian  of  Baltimore  is  most  provoked 
by  the  declaration  of  the  author  of  the  Sermon, 
that  "  the  gay,  the  fashionable,  the  worldly,  and 
even  the  licentious,"  are  the  classes  of  society  to 
whom  the  Unitarian  preachers  are  the  most  ac- 
ceptable. Dr.  M.  establishes  this  position  most 
satisfactorily.  Indeed,  it  needs  no  proof  to  any 
one  acquainted  with  either  the  past  history,  or 
present  state  of  the  church. 

"  My  Baltimore  accuser,"  says  Dr.  M.  "  dwells 
much,  and  pathetically,  on  what  he  considers  a 
gross  violation  of  Christian  charity,  in  speaking 
as  I  have  done  of  Unitarians.  From  what  he 
says  on  this  subject,  I  conclude  that  he  under- 
stands the  word  charity  in  a  sense  which,  though 
current  enough  in  common  society,  among  a  thou- 
sand other  popular  crudities,  is  certainly  not 
found  in  Scripture,  and  ought  to  receive  no  coun- 
tenance from  any  accurate  thinker.  According 
to  him,  Christian  charity  consists  in  entertaining 
a  favourable  opinion  of  others,   however  widely 


■  The  sections  enclosed  in  brackets  are  crossed  in  the  manu- 
script, by  (it  is  presumed)  some  one  of  the  committee  of  puV 
lication.     Whv  ? 


12 

they  may  differ  from  us  on  the  most  essential 
points;  in  supposing  that  they  have  inquired  after 
truth  as  cordially  as  we  have  done;  and  in  taking 
for  granted,  that  there  is  as  much  reason  to  hope 
that  they  will  be  finally  accepted  of  God,  as  that 
we  ourselves  shall  be  accepted.  I  assert,  with 
confidence,  that  the  word  charity  is  never  used  in 
this  sense  in  Scripture;  and  that  it  ought  not  to 
be  so  used  by  any  one,  especially  when  speaking 
of  charity  as  a  Christian  duty.  The  word  cha- 
rity as  used  in  Scripture,  is  equivalent  to  the  word 
love.  To  exercise  charity  toward  another,  in  the 
language  of  the  Bible,  is  to  love  him. 

If  the  writer's  ideas  of  the  nature  of  Christian 
charity  be  correct,  then  our  blessed  Saviour  most 
grievously  offended  against  this  duty,  when  he 
said  to  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  "  Ye  serpents, 
ye  generation  of  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape  the 
damnation  of  hell?  If  he  be  correct,  the  apos- 
tle John  no  less  palpably  violated  this  duty,  when 
he  said  in  his  second  epistle,  "  He  that  abideth 
not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  hath  not  God:  he 
that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  hath 
both  the  Father  and  Son.  If  there  come  any 
unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive 
him  not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God 
speed;  for  he  thatbiddeth  him  God  speed,  is  par- 
taker of  his  evil  deeds."  The  apostle  Paul,  too, 
if  this  be  true,  lays  himself  open  to  a  similar 
charge,  when,  in  writing  to  the  Galatians,  he  de- 
clares, "  As  we  said  before,  so  say  I  now  again, 
if  any  man  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you 
than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  be  accursed." 
But  will  any  dare  to  say,  that  there  was  a  want 
of  charity  in  these  cases." 

The  cry  of  charity  is  raised  by  all  errorists,  all 


\3 

heretics,  all  who  are  declining  frow  the  truth,  or 
relaxing  the  tone  of  truth,  or  of  church  order. 
The  unwary  are  caught  in  the  snare.  Men  are 
made  to  believe,  that  to  say  any  thing  against 
heresy,  held  by  any  one,  is  a  gross  violation  of 
charity,  and  inconsistent  with  Christian  liberality. 
He  who  will  "  strive  for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel," 
who  will  "  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints,"  is  denounced  as  uncha- 
ritable, as  illiberal,  as  bigoted  :  so  the  heretic  of 
Baltimore  denounced  Dr.  M.  The  enlightened 
and  scriptural  view  given  of  this  subject,  in  the 
preceding  quotation,  cannot  fail  to  do  good.  We 
are  not  to  be  deterred  from  preaching  the  truth, 
and  defending  it  against  the  errors  and  heresies 
of  the  times,  because  heretics  and  errorists  cry 
out  bigotry. 

The  last  topic  of  the  Baltimore  Unitarian, 
which  Dr  M.  notices,  "  is  the  list  of  distinguished 
Unitarians  with  which  he  decorates  his  pages." 
The  author  of  the  letter  confesses  his  impression, 
that  "  Locke  and  Newton  are  treated  with  great 
injustice,  when  their  names  are  inserted  in  the  ca- 
talogues of  Unitarians."  Bishop  Clayton,  he  ad- 
mits, was  not  a  sound  Trinitarian.  Hoadly,  "  very 
much  of  a  latitudinarian."  Chillingworth,  of  very 
unsteady  character — a  Protestant  and  Papist  by 
turns:  at  length  he  died  a  Socinian,  soon  after 
having  solemnly  denied  that  he  was  one.  "  But," 
says  Dr.  M.  "  granting  this ;"  granting  that  not 
only  Hoadly  and  Chillingworth,  but  Law  and 
Blackbourne,  and  multitudes  more,  of  equal  lite- 
rary fame,  belonged  to  the  same  class;  what  is 
the  consequence?  Why,  that  a  number  of  regular 
clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England,  who  had 
subscribed  the  Articles,  and  were  in  the  habit  of 
<2 


14 

solemnly  reciting  the  prayers  of  that  church,  did 
not  believe  a  word  of  either,  but  continued,  from 
time  to  time,  deliberately  to  violate  their  vows, 
and  insult  their  God."  It  is  gratifying  to  hear 
Dr.  M.  thus  prostrate  the  claims  of  the  adversary 
to  respect  from  the  names  which  he  musters ;  and 
thus  strongly  reprobate  the  practice  of  swearing 
to  support  creeds  and  confessions ;  while  they  who 
so  swear,  do  not  believe  them.  While  Dr.  M. 
gives  to  the  Unitarian  some  of  the  distinguished 
men  that  they  claim,  he  remarks :  "lam  parti- 
cularly anxious  to  separate  at  least  one  name 
from  the  company  in  which  it  is  placed" — 
"  against  placing  the  pious,  the  heavenly-minded 
Watts  in  such  company,  I  feel  constrained  to  en- 
ter my  solemn  protest."  The  grounds  on  which 
he  supports  this  protest  are,  that  Watts,  in  his 
work  entitled  '  Orthodoxy  and  Charity  United,' 
comes  to  a  formal  and  solemn  conclusion,  that 
Socinians  are  not  Christians; — that  his  hope  of 
finding  Locke  in  heaven,  was  founded  on  the 
confident  persuasion  that  he  was  not  a  Socinian. 
Dr.  M.  thinks  that  Watts  never  changed  his  mind, 
otherwise  he  would  have  called  in  his  "  Psalms 
and  Hymns,  especially  his  Doxologies,  in  all 
which  the  Trinity  is  so  strongly  acknowledged." 
To  be  able  honestly  to  assent  to  this  position, 
would  be  gratifying.  To  dissent  from  an  opi- 
nion of  this  amiable  and  distinguished  divine,  on 
a  point  about  which  he  is  "  particularly  anxious ;" 
and  to  be  forced,  by  unquestionable  evidence,  to 
assent  to  that  against  which  he  enters  his  solemn 
protest,  is  painful.  The  known  candour  of  the 
author,  however,  affords  this  relief,  that  he  will 
be  as  ready  as  any  one  to  assent  to  the  evidence, 
should  it  prove  decisive,  that  Watts  was  a  Uni~ 


15 

(arian  ;  and  that  if  it  shall  appear  lie  has  formed 
a  mistaken  estimate  of  that  writer,  lie  will,  with 
his  accustomed  candour,  admit  the  truth,  how- 
ever unpleasant.  His  elevated  standing  in  the 
church,  and  his  praise-worthy  firmness  in  the 
cause  of  truth,  forbid  the  thought  that  he  would 
descend  from  the  commanding  station  of  a  cham- 
pion for  orthodoxy,  and  for  the  honour  of  our 
glorious  Redeemer,  and  for  the  glory  of  the  one 
God  subsisting  in  three  persons,  to  become  the 
humble  apologist  of  any  one  man,  however  great 
his  fame,  who  by  his  writing  had  not  only  put  in 
jeopardy,  but  had  really  abandoned  those  doc- 
trines, which  Dr.  M.  so  clearly  proves  to  be  the 
very  essence  of  Christianity.  This  discussion  is 
important;  for  should  it  prove  to  be  a  fact,  that 
he  was  really  an  anti-trinitarian,  and  that  his  un- 
wise and  imprudent  speculations  (which  Dr.  M. 
admits)  were  heretical,  we  weaken  our  cause  by 
defending  him,  as  "  pious  and  heavenly-minded," 
while  we  denounce  those  who  hold  his  very  opi- 
nions, as  no  more  entitled  to  the  Christian  name 
than  "  Herbert  or  Hume."  Farther,  his  works 
are  in  many  hands,  and  his  influence  confessedly 
great.  Should  his  readers  be  induced,  by  the 
authority  of  Dr.  M.  or  any  other  divine  of  high 
and  deserved  reputation,  to  view  "  his  specula- 
tions" as  harmless,  and  his  orthodoxy  as  indis- 
putable, they  would  be  induced  to  embrace  his 
opinions,  and  thus  our  defence  would  be  worse 
than  ineffectual.  A  court  of  inquiry  on  his  final 
state,  we  are  not  authorized  to  hold ;  but  his  opi- 
nions, coming  down  to  us  with  the  sanction  of  his 
name,  are  fair  subjects  of  examination,  on  account 
of  the  influence  they  may  have  on  the  cause  of 
truth,  and  on  the  purity  of  the  Gospel,  "  for  the 


i6 

defence  of  which  we  are  set,"  by  him  to  whom 
Watts,  as  a  man,  "  standeth  or  falleth." 

But  let  us  examine  the  reasons  of  Dr.  M.'s  pro- 
test. "  Socinians,"  says  Dr.  Watts,  "  are  not 
Christians."  Do  we  not  all  know  how  bitterly 
Or.  Priestley,  the  Socinian,  opposed  the  AriansJ 
He  thought  their  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of 
the  soul  of  Christ,  almost  as  great  a  heresy  as 
that  of  the  Trinity.  When  he  visited  Massachu- 
setts, at  least  one  Arian  minister  in  Salem,  re- 
fused him  admission  to  his  pulpit,  and  said,  that 
on  Dr.  Priestley's  plan  he  would  despair  of  sal- 
vation. So  we  perceive  that  Watts  may  have 
been  an  Arian,  and  yet  have  no  hope  of  salvation 
for  Locke,  embracing  Socinianism.  And  Dr.  M. 
knows  that  the  great  body  of  those  Unitarians, 
whom  he  denounces  as  no  Christians,  are  Arians, 
and  not  Socinians. 

As  to  "  his  Psalms,  Hymns,  and  Doxologies," 
containing  strong  acknowledgments  of  the  Tri- 
nity, he  will  permit  us  to  doubt.  What  evidence 
have  we  of  his  belief  in  this  doctrine,  from  his 
Psalms  and  Hymns?  The  declaration  that  Christ 
is  "  God's  eternal  Son,"  is  Dwight's,  and  not 
Watts';  for  it  is  well  known  that  it  was  not  in  his 
imitation  of  the  second  Psalm.  Sabellians,  Dr. 
M.  well  knows,  might,  and  did,  speak  of  "  God 
the  Father,  and  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy 
Ghost,  three  in  one,"  as  familiarly  as  any  Trini- 
tarian ;  though  they  denied  utterly  that  there  are 
three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  maintained 
that  the  names  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
were  three  names  of  one  person,  called  Father  as 
devising,  Son  as  accomplishing,  and  Holy  Ghost 
as  applying  salvation.  To  drive  them  from  this 
subterfuge,  the  term  person  was  applied  by  the 


17 

orthodox  and  adopted  in  the  confessions  of  the 
church,  Dr.  M.  has  read  the  chapter  in  Calvin's 
institutions  on  the  Trinity,  and  knows  thatitrecords 
ample  testimony  to  the  truth  of  these  facts.  On 
this  subject,  we  refer  the  reader  to  Nolan  on  the 
authenticity  of  the  Greek  Vulgate.  Neither  the 
Orthodoxy  and  Charity  United,  nor  the  psalms, 
hymns  and  doxologies  of  Watts,  afford  a  shadow 
of  evidence  that  their  author  was  not  a  Sabellian, 
or  an  Arian.  He  might  have  written  all  that  they 
both  contain,  and  yet  have  denied,  with  the  Sabel- 
lian, a  trinity  of  persons;  or  with  the  Arian,  the 
divinity  of  the  Saviour.  Indeed,  that  the  erudite 
Dr.  M.,  notwithstanding  his  particular  anxiety, 
should  be  able  to  produce  no  better  testimony  of 
Dr.  Watts'  orthodoxy,  affords  a  very  strong  pre- 
sumption that  it  cannot  be  found. 

After  all,  we  should  not  prefer  so  great  a  charge 
as  that  of  heresy,  against  so  celebrated  a  man,  on 
presumption;  let  us  hear  him  speak  for  himself. 
He  says,*  "  I  think  it  also  proper  to  acknowledge, 
that  I  was  at  that  time  inclined  to  suppose  these 
personal  representations  in  Scripture,  especially 
so  far  as  relates  to  the  blessed  Spirit,  were  really 
to  be  understood  in  a  more  proper  and  literal 
sense,  than  I  now  find  necessary;  and  on  that  ac- 
count I  did  then  express  the  doctrine  of  three  per- 
sons, or  three  distinct  intelligent  agents,  in  terms 
a  little  stronger  and  more  unlimited  than  my 
judgment  now  approves.  For  since  that  time  I 
have  more  carefully  considered  the  Jewish  idioms 
of  speech,  wherein  powers,  virtues,  and  properties 
are  frequently  personalized,  or  represented  in  a 


*  Preface  to  the  Arian  invited  to  the  Orthodox  Faith. —  WnlU 
Works,  vol.  6.  p.  274.  London,  1813. 


18 

personal  manner."  Again,*  "  Some  may  won- 
der that  I  have  omitted  the  eternal  generation  of 
his  divine  nature  in  this  place.  But  I  know  no 
text  that  plainly  calls  Christ  the  Son,  considered 
as  pure  God ;  and  if  revelation  does  not  dictate 
the  doctrine  of  a  begotten  God,  reason  does  not 
at  all  require  it."  Again,f  "  But  when  the  Word 
and  Spirit  are  called  persons,  which  are  supposed 
to  be  really  but  divine  powers  of  the  Father, 
whose  inward  distinction  we  know  not,  the  term 
person  is  then  used  in  a  figurative  or  metaphori- 
cal sense,  and  not  in  so  proper  and  literal  a  sense 
as  when  the  Father  is  called  a  person.  Yet  that 
there  is  sufficient  distinction  between  them  to  lay 
a  foundation  for  such  a  distinct  personal  repre- 
sentation of  them  in  Scripture,  will  appear  by  the 
following  considerations: 

J"  Are  not  the  various  faculties  of  man  often 
represented  under  personal  characters,  in  common 
discourse?  How  frequently  is  a  man  represented 
as  conversing  with  his  own  mind,  communing 
with  his  own  heart,  following  the  dictates  of  his 
own  will,  or  subduing  his  will,  and  subjecting  it 
to  his  reason?  Do  we  not  freely  say,  'my  mind 
denies  her  assent  to  such  a  doctrine ;  or  my  will 
resists  no  more,  but  yields  itself  up  to  the  con- 
duct of  my  understanding?' — And  since  human 
powers  are  thus  represented  as  persons,  why  may 
not  the  Word  and  Spirit,  which  are  divine  powers, 
be  thus  represented  also?  And  why  may  not  God 
be  represented  as  a  person,  transacting  his  own 
divine  affairs  with  his  Word  and  Spirit,  under 
personal  characters;  since  a  man  is  represented 

*  Preface  to  the  Arian  invited  to  the  Orthodox  Faith. —  Watts! 
Works,  vol.  6.  p.  299. 

t  Ibid.  365—6.  -i  Ibid.  p.  371. 


19 

as  transacting  human  affairs  with  his  understand- 
ing, mind,  will,  reason,  fancy,  or  conscience,  in 
a  personal  manner?"  Again,*  "And  as  the  di- 
vine nature,  as  God,  has  something  in  him  tran- 
scendently  superior  to  all  our  ideas  of  human 
souls,  so  the  powers  of  a  God,  which,  in  conde- 
scension to  our  weakness,  are  called  his  Word  and 
his  Spirit,  may  have  something  in  them,  even  in 
this  respect,  so  transcendently  superior  to  the 
powers  of  the  human  soul  as  to  be  more  proper  sub- 
jects of  such  personal  characters  and  ascriptions, 
as  the  holy  Scriptures  has  attributed  to  them;  and 
yet  their  distinction  or  difference  may  not  be  so 
great  as  to  make  them  distinct  conscious  minds." 
"  And  if  any  single  term  signified  the  power 
of  operation,  or  moving  the  body,  I  would  ap- 
ply that  to  the  Holy  Spirit;  because  I  think  this 
analogy  and  resemblance  would  come  something 
nearer  to  the  scriptural  ideas  of  the  Word  and 
Spirit;  the  one  being  represented  as  an  intelligent 
volative  power,  the  other  as  an  intelligent  effec- 
tive power." — "  Here  let  it  be  observed,  that  in 
explaining  these  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature 
itself,  I  choose  to  call  the  second  person  the  Word 
rather  than  the  Son ;  for  as  some  late  writers 
suppose  that  the  Sonship  of  Christ  rather  refers 
to  his  human  nature,  or  to  his  mediatorial  office, 
than  to  his  Godhead,  so  I  must  declare,  I  am  much 
inclined  to  that  sentiment!"  Again,f  "  May  we 
not  therefore  conceive  the  Word  and  Spirit,  as 
two  divine  faculties,  virtues,  or  powers  in  the  es- 
sence of  Godr"  And, J  "  But  his  Word  and  his 
Spirit  seem  to  be  represented  in  Scripture,  as  the 

*  Preface  to  the  Arian  invited  to  the  Orthodox  Faith. —  Waits' 
Works,  vol.  6,  p.  380. 

t  Ibid.  p.  382.  i  Ibid.  p.  383. 


20 

physical  principles  of  knowing,  willing,  and  effi- 
ciency, and  therefore  I  will  call  them  powers!"  &c. 
In  page  308,  he  explains  what  he  means  by  his 
doxologies — "  If  the  Word  and  Spirit  are  those 
divine  powers  by  which  God  doeth  every  thing, 
may  not  each  of  them  be  called  God  ?  May  we 
not  say  the  Word  is  God,  and  the  Spirit  is  God? 
May  not  what  each  of  them  does  be  appropriated 
to  God,  since  they  are  the  powers  by  which  God 
operates?"  Do  the  doxologies  of  this  man  prove 
his  orthodoxy?  In  these  quotations  Watts  cannot 
be  misunderstood.  He  most  distinctly  denies  the 
existence  of  three  persons  in  the  Trinity,  and 
makes  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  mere 
faculties,  physical  faculties,  or  attributes.  The 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  in  his  view,  are  no  more  per- 
sons, than  the  human  understanding  and  will  are 
persons.  To  prove  this  is  the  burden  of  the  whole 
essay,  entitled,  The  Jlrian  invited  to  the  Orthodox 
Faith,  occupying  175  octavo  pages.  Any  one 
who  reads  it,  though  he  must  be  shocked,  if  he  is 
orthodox,  with  its  monstrous  heresies,  will  be 
convinced  that  he  was  in  the  full  vigour  of  his 
mind.  Even  if  he  had  not,  we  find  it  among  his 
works,  where  his  friends,  who  had  a  right  to  judge 
of  his  sanity,  have  left  it.  In  fact,  The  Jlrian  in- 
vited to  the  Orthodox  Faith  was  written,  as  ap- 
pears by  the  date  of  his  preface,*  May  8th  1725, 
— that  is,  23  years  before  the  year  of  his  death, 
1748.  He  was  then  neither  a  thoughtless  youth, 
nor  doting  old  man;  for  both  of  these  have  been 
asserted  by  his  friends.  That  he  wrote  these  here- 
sies when  he  "  fancied  himself  a  tea-pot,"  is  an 
apology  which,  though  offered  by  some  of  his  ad- 

*  WcUts'  Works,  vol.  6.  p.  276. 


21 

voeates,  he  would  have  disdained.  We  find  the 
same  sentiments  in  his  Questions  concerning  Je- 
sus the  Son  of  God,  in  the  preface  to  which  he 
says,*  "  He  also  takes  the  freedom  to  say,  these 
papers  are  the  product  of  that  part  of  life  when 
the  powers  of  mind  and  body  were  in  full  vigour." 
Whatever  Dr.  M.  may  think  of  his  being  "  pre- 
eminently conscientious  and  disinterested,"!  we 
see  he  has  told  us  expressly,  that  he  did  change 
his  mind.  Let  no  one  think  that  Dr.  M.  is 
charged  with  wilful  misrepresentation.  It  is  im- 
possible that  he  could  have  known  the  heresies  of 
Dr.  Watts,  and  have  written  as  he  has.  Of  this 
he  is  cordially  acquitted.  Doddridge,  Anderson, 
M'Master,  Dr.  Erskine,  Dr.  Ely,  and  others,  es- 
pecially President  Edwards,  exhibit  Watts'  opi- 
nions in  the  same  light  in  which  they  are  repre- 
sented in  the  preceding  pages.  Who  will  doubt 
the  discrimination  of  President  Edwards?  Who 
will  accuse  that  illustrious  scholar  and  divine  of 
a  disposition  to  do  injustice  to  Watts ?  Of  his 
scheme  of  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul  of  Christ, 
he  speaks  in  the  following  termsj — "  According 
to  what  seems  to  be  Dr.  Watts'  scheme,  the  Son 
of  God  is  no  distinct  divine  person,  he  is  the 
same  with  the  Father.  So  far  as  he  is  a  divine 
person,  he  is  the  same  person  with  the  Father. 
So  that,  in  the  covenant  of  redemption,  the  Fa- 
ther covenants  with  himself,  and  he  takes  satis- 
faction of  himself,  &c.  Unless  you  will  say,  that 
one  nature  covenanted  with  the  other;  the  two 
natures  in  the  same  person  covenanted  together, 


*  Preface  to  the  Arian  invited  to  the  Orthodox  Faith. —  Watts 
Works,  vol.  6.  p.  391. 

t  Letter,  p.  33.  i  Edwards'  Obser.  vol.  ft-. 


22 

and  one  nature  in  the  same  person  took  satisfac- 
tion of  the  other  nature  in  the  same  person.  But 
how  does  this  confound  our  minds,  instead  of 
helping  our  ideas,  or  making  them  more  easy 
and  intelligible!"  Thus,  we  perceive  that  that 
great  and  good  man  did  not  believe  that  Dr. 
Watts  owned  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  though 
he  had  before  him  no  more,  evidently,  than 
*  Watts  on  the  Glory  of  Christ.'  What  would  he 
have  said,  had  he  read  the  Avian  invited  to 
the  Orthodox  Faith,  or  the  prayer  quoted  by 
M'Master. 

It  is  hoped,  that  the  friend  of  truth  will  here- 
after abandon  him  to  the  Unitarians.  His  rea- 
soning, in  the  Avian  invited,  &c.  is  precisely  the 
same  as  Dr.  Priestley  has  published  in  many 
works,  and  it  is  well  known  that  Dr.  Priestley 
always  claimed  Watts;  and  Dr.  M.  admits,  that 
however  heretical  Priestley  was,  he  was  not  un- 
eandid.  Our  cause  does  not  depend  on  Watts, 
any  more  than  on  Priestley,  Belsham,  or  Lind- 
sey,  but  on  the  infallible  word  of  God.  After  a 
violent  controversy,  the  friends  of  Origen  had  to 
abandon  him,  and  no  one  now  doubts  that  he 
was  an  anti-trinitarian.  With  him,  and  other 
heretics  of  his  stamp,  history  will  record  the 
name  of  Watts;  and  posterity  will  wonder  that 
any  one  orthodox  man  ever  defended  him,  as  we 
now  do  that  any  one  did  Origen.  Truth  can 
and  will  triumph,  without  the  aid  of  the  names 
either  of  Watts  or  Origen.  Other  attempts  to 
defend  him,  will  only  provoke  a  more  full  expo- 
sure of  the  extent  and  enormity  of  the  heresies  of 
Watts,  of  which  the  Christian  community  knows 
yet  comparatively  little.  This  is  not  intended 
for  the  amiable  author  of  the  Letter;   from  his 


23 

candour  and  frankness,  other  such  attempts  are 
not  to  be  expected  from  him.  Every  impartial 
and  other  orthodox  man,  who  will  study  Watts 
with  attention,  must  come  to  the  solemn  conclusion 
that  he  is  incomparably  more  dangerous  than 
Socirius,  Cullius,  Priestley  or  Channing.  The 
reader  is  forewarned,  when  he  enters  their  pages, 
and  armed  against  the  poison:  But  when  he 
reads  Watts,  he  enters  his  pages  with  all  his  pre- 
possessions in  his  favour,  with  a  full  persuasion 
that  he  is  a  Trinitarian,  that  he  is  orthodox.  Dr. 
M.  does  not  indeed  say  so  much,  but  the  in- 
cautious reader  will  infer  it;  and,  believing  him 
"  pious  and  heavenly-minded,"  "  pre-eminently 
conscientious  and  disinterested,"  "  a  great  and 
good  man,  to  whom  the  interests  of  vital  piety 
are  much  indebted,"  he  will  drink  in  his  heresies, 
proposed  with  so  much  show  of  piety,  until  he  is 
intoxicated  with  the  draught  so  skilfully  pre- 
pared. Dr.  M.  will  regret,  as  much  as  any  one, 
when  he  discovers  the  fact,  that  he  has  con- 
tributed to  increase  the  danger. 

Jas.  R.  Willson. 

Xewburgh,  (N.  Y.)  I 
\pril  23d,  1821.      $ 


•JOK^W/ilVfJ^ 


"■-.■,; 


IIP 

^  .*Kv  oa>  I  -'■r  I  H 


£3 


